No, thousands of people (devs, gamers, journalists, etc) rebelling online can easily apply foresight to this business model. There's nothing unusual or so strange that the modern mind can't comprehend where it leads to. It's not like a dog being asked to use a laptop and can't understand what a laptop is.
There are also so many game developers attacking it because they have already seen previous examples of very similar ideas implemented in gaming. It always resulted in players developing mental health problems or farms of poor people in Asia playing games 12 hours a day for a rich boss who collects the rewards and gives these poor players a **** unsustainable wage. So they 'work' (not play) these games for rich people to exploit them and because it is so unhealthy they become exhausted after months.
I may have done a poor job of explaining my point, since it seems like you interpreted what I said to be a defense of NFTs or the current ridiculous ponzi/gambling schemes people want to turn them into.
I'm
not saying that users can't understand the real use cases. I'm also
not saying users don't understand the current stupid buzzword fodder and outright scams--they clearly do, which is why gamers, at least, are openly rebelling against them as the money grab/attempt to force a speculative bubble they are.
It's heartening to see the only people actually supporting the current NFT stupidity being a richer flavor of the same speculators who blew up the baseball card market in the '80s and comic book market in the '90s, and ruin basically everything they touch.
What I was trying to say is that the entire "business model" of all the NFT things being pushed now is so fundamentally different from the handful of remotely useful use cases of the technology I can think of that they don't even come to mind. That's not a fault of potential users, it's the fault of the people trying to create a speculative market bubble, and that having nothing to do with any of the NFT uses that at least in theory might not be stupid.
NFTs, in any actual productive use, aren't a "market" or "business model", they're just a decentralized ownership tracking database that allows for unique identifiers and easy exchange of ownership. There are some real-world uses for that, although whether any actually are better than a centralized database is another question entirely.
That's why I could see an NFT-based system--
hypothetically, because in reality I doubt it would work--being used in place of Steam's proprietary internal ownership database for games (or GoG's, or publishers' internal serial number database, or whatever). In reality I doubt it would work, but at least it could, in part because game licenses are fungible, and generally not artificially scarce.
Of course, nobody is even talking about that option, because it wouldn't make
anybody more money, and would make Steam and just about every publisher less money. There's a reason, after all, that you used to be able to transfer a software serial number to a new user, but now you need to "redeem your code" and link that software license to your personal account such that it can no longer be transferred.
I can also think of other reasons that the whole low-friction resale concept would be despised by just about everybody and might screw up the entire market.
Likewise for the concept of, say, an NFT-based vehicle ownership tracking. It makes nobody any money at all, and has absolutely nothing to do with the current bubbles, the only advantage would be taking the ownership and control of the database away from the government and decentralizing it, which is of very limited utility.
There's also the attempt to replace the current semi-centralized domain registration system with a NFT-based one, which is at least conceptually about the best one I've seen, since it aligns with the decentralized concept of the whole internet.
Hypothetically, that way no entity or group of entities has control over domain name registration. It also has major drawbacks, and in this case even the centralized non-NFT system had a huge speculative bubble with .com then domain extension land rushes and rampant speculative stupidity.
All of which is to say that my point is only that the Venn diagram of "situations in which a decentralized serial number ownership and transfer system is useful" and the current situation of "how can we pick some arbitrary thing with which to create a speculative bubble" have only a tiny sliver of overlap in the circles, and
everybody is talking exclusively about the stupid circle, so it's kind of hard to even get a grasp on what things might be in the useful circle.
www.bbc.co.uk
